
In November, I attended the 20th Asia Pacific Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infection (APCCMI) in Bangkok, drawn by its focus on multidrug-resistant organisms. From lectures and discussions with colleagues from Singapore, Hong Kong, mainland China, Taiwan and Thailand, it was clear these regions face a major and escalating problem with highly resistant pathogens.
Coliforms such as E. coli, common causes of urinary and abdominal infections, are now resistant to all but one or two last-resort antibiotics in around half of serious infections. Treatment options exist, but are prohibitively expensive.
Traditionally, we have looked to the United States and Europe for guidance in infectious-disease management. Yet, sitting among experts from across Southeast Asia – clinicians who deal with these infections daily, and routinely use drugs that I have prescribed only once or twice – it was clear we should now be learning from them. It marks a remarkable shift: we once looked down on their health systems; now we look up to them for leadership.
Antibiotic resistance is spreading globally. Australia remains largely protected by geography and strong infection-control programs, but incursions are inevitable. I’m proud of the infection-control frameworks we’ve developed across Western Australian hospitals, but even the best systems can only delay – not prevent – the inevitable. Within a decade, our resistance rates may resemble those of our neighbours.
Singapore and Japan provide a preview. Both have advanced health systems, yet face substantial resistance burdens. In Singapore, about one-third of Gram-negative blood culture isolates produce Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamases (ESBLs), making them resistant to standard antibiotics. In Hong Kong, almost half of Gram-negative bloodstream isolates show the same trait. It’s only a matter of time before we reach similar levels.
“ I’m proud of the infection-control frameworks we’ve developed across Western Australian hospitals, but even the best systems can only delay – not prevent – the inevitable. Within a decade, our resistance rates may resemble those of our neighbours.
The financial implications are profound. A 35-year-old with appendicitis and a post-operative infection currently receives effective IV antibiotics costing a few hundred dollars. In 10 years, the same infection might require newer agents costing tens of thousands of dollars.
Antifungal therapy costs are equally alarming. Liposomal amphotericin, used for invasive mould infections in transplant or immunosuppressed patients, costs $2,000–$3,000 a day for up to 28 days – over $60,000 per course. These drugs are not listed on the PBS, so public-hospital patients receive them free, while private patients pay out of pocket – an obvious inequity.
Availability adds another challenge. These infections remain relatively uncommon, so a private hospital might need drugs like ceftazidime-avibactam or cefiderocol only once every two or three months. Private pharmacies are reluctant to stock them, because they must pay upfront and discard them once expired – a major disincentive.
The UK’s National Health Service has pioneered a ‘Netflix-style’ subscription model for antibiotics. The government pays a fixed annual fee to a pharmaceutical company for guaranteed access to high-cost anti-infectives, allowing hospitals to stock them without financial risk.1
Notably, Australia actually led the world in adopting a subscription-style approach: our 2015 national risk-sharing agreement for Hepatitis C antivirals provided universal access and became a global model for funding essential, high-cost medicines.2
“ Australia must rethink how it funds and stocks these indispensable medicines. The current market-based model fails both equity and preparedness. Reform is essential to ensure all Australians have access to the drugs they need, when they need them.
New Zealand follows a similar public model: its Pharmac agency identifies essential drugs, tenders for supply, and funds them for all patients. Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), however, relies on pharmaceutical companies to sponsor and fund their own submissions for listing. The process is expensive, discouraging applications for low-volume or orphan drugs such as advanced antibiotics. Our strong antimicrobial-stewardship programs, while vital, further limit usage and commercial incentive. Consequently, many critical antimicrobials remain unlisted, leaving states or private patients to bear the cost.
Australia must rethink how it funds and stocks these indispensable medicines. Life-saving anti-infectives should not be treated like perishable commodities. The current market-based model – where hospitals pay per unit and carry expiry risk – fails both equity and preparedness. Reform is essential to ensure all Australians have access to the drugs they need, when they need them.
You're just getting to the good part! Log in to your AMA (WA) member account to continue reading, or join today for full access to exclusive content, member benefits, and more.
Month End Offer is live!
Get up to 40% off on AMAMedius
Sign in using your membership email and date of birth.